Response rate and local recurrence after concurrent immune checkpoint therapy and radiotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma brain metastases
Background Prior literature has suggested synergy between immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) and radiotherapy (RT) for the treatment of brain metastases (BrM), but to the authors' knowledge the optimal timing of therapy to maximize this synergy is unclear. Methods A total of 199 patients with mela...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Cancer 2020-12, Vol.126 (24), p.5274-5282 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 5282 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 24 |
| container_start_page | 5274 |
| container_title | Cancer |
| container_volume | 126 |
| creator | Qian, Jack M. Martin, Allison M. Martin, Kate Hammoudeh, Lubna Catalano, Paul J. Hodi, F. Stephen Cagney, Daniel N. Haas‐Kogan, Daphne A. Schoenfeld, Jonathan D. Aizer, Ayal A. |
| description | Background
Prior literature has suggested synergy between immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) and radiotherapy (RT) for the treatment of brain metastases (BrM), but to the authors' knowledge the optimal timing of therapy to maximize this synergy is unclear.
Methods
A total of 199 patients with melanoma and non–small cell lung cancer with BrM received ICT and RT between 2007 and 2016 at the study institution. To reduce selection biases, individual metastases were included only if they were treated with RT within 90 days of ICT. Concurrent treatment was defined as RT delivered on the same day as or in between doses of an ICT course; all other treatment was considered to be nonconcurrent. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to response and local disease recurrence on a per‐metastasis basis, using a sandwich estimator to account for intrapatient correlation.
Results
The final cohort included 110 patients with 340 BrM, with 102 BrM treated concurrently and 238 BrM treated nonconcurrently. Response rates were higher with the use of concurrent treatment (70% vs 47%; P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/cncr.33196 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2463574077</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2463574077</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3936-c826e8fd0ae283438c964eb897ab08ec801988cfb8cb08f7e227993278d98073</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcFq3DAURUVJaKZpN_mAIsiu4ESWPJa0LEOTFkILIYvujPz83DixJffJpswu_9B1fi5fEs046bIgJO7lvPtAl7GTXJzlQshz8EBnSuW2fMNWubA6E3khD9hKCGGydaF-HrF3Md4lqeVavWVHSlpZ6lKs2OM1xjH4iJzchNz5hvcBXM8JYSZCD8lsJyQOwS_OxLthmD1yuEW4H0OXnOkWyY3b_Ty5pguvRhuI--CfHv7GwfU9B0xXP_tfHFzKpv3EgL3zYXC8Jtf5JCcX08H4nh22ro_44eU9ZjcXX242X7OrH5ffNp-vMlBWlRkYWaJpG-FQGlUoA7YssDZWu1oYBCNyawy0tYGkW41SamuV1KaxRmh1zE6X2JHC7xnjVN2FmXzaWMmiVGtdCL2jPi0UUIiRsK1G6gZH2yoX1a6IaldEtS8iwR9fIud6wOYf-vrzCcgX4E_X4_Y_UdXm--Z6CX0GrliXiw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2463574077</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Response rate and local recurrence after concurrent immune checkpoint therapy and radiotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma brain metastases</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Qian, Jack M. ; Martin, Allison M. ; Martin, Kate ; Hammoudeh, Lubna ; Catalano, Paul J. ; Hodi, F. Stephen ; Cagney, Daniel N. ; Haas‐Kogan, Daphne A. ; Schoenfeld, Jonathan D. ; Aizer, Ayal A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Qian, Jack M. ; Martin, Allison M. ; Martin, Kate ; Hammoudeh, Lubna ; Catalano, Paul J. ; Hodi, F. Stephen ; Cagney, Daniel N. ; Haas‐Kogan, Daphne A. ; Schoenfeld, Jonathan D. ; Aizer, Ayal A.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Prior literature has suggested synergy between immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) and radiotherapy (RT) for the treatment of brain metastases (BrM), but to the authors' knowledge the optimal timing of therapy to maximize this synergy is unclear.
Methods
A total of 199 patients with melanoma and non–small cell lung cancer with BrM received ICT and RT between 2007 and 2016 at the study institution. To reduce selection biases, individual metastases were included only if they were treated with RT within 90 days of ICT. Concurrent treatment was defined as RT delivered on the same day as or in between doses of an ICT course; all other treatment was considered to be nonconcurrent. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to response and local disease recurrence on a per‐metastasis basis, using a sandwich estimator to account for intrapatient correlation.
Results
The final cohort included 110 patients with 340 BrM, with 102 BrM treated concurrently and 238 BrM treated nonconcurrently. Response rates were higher with the use of concurrent treatment (70% vs 47%; P < .001), with correspondingly lower rates of progressive disease (5% vs 26%; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, concurrent treatment was found to be associated with improved time to response (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.18‐2.63 [P = .006]) and decreased local recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23‐0.78 [P = .006]). This effect appeared to be greater for melanoma than for non–small cell lung cancer, although interaction tests were not statistically significant. Only 1 of 103 metastases which had a complete response later developed disease progression.
Conclusions
Concurrent RT and ICT may improve response rates and decrease local recurrence of brain metastases compared with treatment that was nonconcurrent but delivered within 90 days. Further study of this combination in prospective, randomized trials is warranted.
There is significant interest in potential synergy between radiotherapy and immune checkpoint therapy, but the optimal timing of each therapy remains unclear. The current study examines a cohort of patients with melanoma and non–small cell lung cancer with brain metastases who were managed with immune checkpoint therapy and brain‐directed radiotherapy within a 90‐day period. Compared with nonconcurrent therapy, concurrent therapy is associated with an improved brain metastasis response rate and decreased local recurrence.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-543X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0142</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33196</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32926760</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; anti‐cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (anti–CTLA‐4) therapy ; anti‐programmed cell death protein 1 (anti–PD‐1) therapy ; Brain ; Brain cancer ; brain metastases ; Brain Neoplasms - secondary ; Brain Neoplasms - therapy ; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung - therapy ; Chemoradiotherapy ; Clinical trials ; Disease Progression ; Female ; Hazard assessment ; Health hazards ; Humans ; Immune checkpoint ; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ; Immunotherapy ; Lung cancer ; Lung Neoplasms - therapy ; Male ; Melanoma ; Melanoma - secondary ; Melanoma - therapy ; Metastases ; Metastasis ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; Non-small cell lung carcinoma ; non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ; Oncology ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Prospective Studies ; Radiation therapy ; radiotherapy ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical models ; Survival Analysis ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Cancer, 2020-12, Vol.126 (24), p.5274-5282</ispartof><rights>2020 American Cancer Society</rights><rights>2020 American Cancer Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3936-c826e8fd0ae283438c964eb897ab08ec801988cfb8cb08f7e227993278d98073</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3936-c826e8fd0ae283438c964eb897ab08ec801988cfb8cb08f7e227993278d98073</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2378-4800 ; 0000-0002-9522-6445</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fcncr.33196$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fcncr.33196$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,1428,27905,27906,45555,45556,46390,46814</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32926760$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Qian, Jack M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, Allison M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, Kate</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hammoudeh, Lubna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Catalano, Paul J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hodi, F. Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cagney, Daniel N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haas‐Kogan, Daphne A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schoenfeld, Jonathan D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aizer, Ayal A.</creatorcontrib><title>Response rate and local recurrence after concurrent immune checkpoint therapy and radiotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma brain metastases</title><title>Cancer</title><addtitle>Cancer</addtitle><description>Background
Prior literature has suggested synergy between immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) and radiotherapy (RT) for the treatment of brain metastases (BrM), but to the authors' knowledge the optimal timing of therapy to maximize this synergy is unclear.
Methods
A total of 199 patients with melanoma and non–small cell lung cancer with BrM received ICT and RT between 2007 and 2016 at the study institution. To reduce selection biases, individual metastases were included only if they were treated with RT within 90 days of ICT. Concurrent treatment was defined as RT delivered on the same day as or in between doses of an ICT course; all other treatment was considered to be nonconcurrent. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to response and local disease recurrence on a per‐metastasis basis, using a sandwich estimator to account for intrapatient correlation.
Results
The final cohort included 110 patients with 340 BrM, with 102 BrM treated concurrently and 238 BrM treated nonconcurrently. Response rates were higher with the use of concurrent treatment (70% vs 47%; P < .001), with correspondingly lower rates of progressive disease (5% vs 26%; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, concurrent treatment was found to be associated with improved time to response (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.18‐2.63 [P = .006]) and decreased local recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23‐0.78 [P = .006]). This effect appeared to be greater for melanoma than for non–small cell lung cancer, although interaction tests were not statistically significant. Only 1 of 103 metastases which had a complete response later developed disease progression.
Conclusions
Concurrent RT and ICT may improve response rates and decrease local recurrence of brain metastases compared with treatment that was nonconcurrent but delivered within 90 days. Further study of this combination in prospective, randomized trials is warranted.
There is significant interest in potential synergy between radiotherapy and immune checkpoint therapy, but the optimal timing of each therapy remains unclear. The current study examines a cohort of patients with melanoma and non–small cell lung cancer with brain metastases who were managed with immune checkpoint therapy and brain‐directed radiotherapy within a 90‐day period. Compared with nonconcurrent therapy, concurrent therapy is associated with an improved brain metastasis response rate and decreased local recurrence.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>anti‐cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (anti–CTLA‐4) therapy</subject><subject>anti‐programmed cell death protein 1 (anti–PD‐1) therapy</subject><subject>Brain</subject><subject>Brain cancer</subject><subject>brain metastases</subject><subject>Brain Neoplasms - secondary</subject><subject>Brain Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung - therapy</subject><subject>Chemoradiotherapy</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Disease Progression</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hazard assessment</subject><subject>Health hazards</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immune checkpoint</subject><subject>Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors</subject><subject>Immunotherapy</subject><subject>Lung cancer</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Melanoma</subject><subject>Melanoma - secondary</subject><subject>Melanoma - therapy</subject><subject>Metastases</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local</subject><subject>Non-small cell lung carcinoma</subject><subject>non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Proportional Hazards Models</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>radiotherapy</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical models</subject><subject>Survival Analysis</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0008-543X</issn><issn>1097-0142</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kcFq3DAURUVJaKZpN_mAIsiu4ESWPJa0LEOTFkILIYvujPz83DixJffJpswu_9B1fi5fEs046bIgJO7lvPtAl7GTXJzlQshz8EBnSuW2fMNWubA6E3khD9hKCGGydaF-HrF3Md4lqeVavWVHSlpZ6lKs2OM1xjH4iJzchNz5hvcBXM8JYSZCD8lsJyQOwS_OxLthmD1yuEW4H0OXnOkWyY3b_Ty5pguvRhuI--CfHv7GwfU9B0xXP_tfHFzKpv3EgL3zYXC8Jtf5JCcX08H4nh22ro_44eU9ZjcXX242X7OrH5ffNp-vMlBWlRkYWaJpG-FQGlUoA7YssDZWu1oYBCNyawy0tYGkW41SamuV1KaxRmh1zE6X2JHC7xnjVN2FmXzaWMmiVGtdCL2jPi0UUIiRsK1G6gZH2yoX1a6IaldEtS8iwR9fIud6wOYf-vrzCcgX4E_X4_Y_UdXm--Z6CX0GrliXiw</recordid><startdate>20201215</startdate><enddate>20201215</enddate><creator>Qian, Jack M.</creator><creator>Martin, Allison M.</creator><creator>Martin, Kate</creator><creator>Hammoudeh, Lubna</creator><creator>Catalano, Paul J.</creator><creator>Hodi, F. Stephen</creator><creator>Cagney, Daniel N.</creator><creator>Haas‐Kogan, Daphne A.</creator><creator>Schoenfeld, Jonathan D.</creator><creator>Aizer, Ayal A.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2378-4800</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9522-6445</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201215</creationdate><title>Response rate and local recurrence after concurrent immune checkpoint therapy and radiotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma brain metastases</title><author>Qian, Jack M. ; Martin, Allison M. ; Martin, Kate ; Hammoudeh, Lubna ; Catalano, Paul J. ; Hodi, F. Stephen ; Cagney, Daniel N. ; Haas‐Kogan, Daphne A. ; Schoenfeld, Jonathan D. ; Aizer, Ayal A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3936-c826e8fd0ae283438c964eb897ab08ec801988cfb8cb08f7e227993278d98073</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>anti‐cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (anti–CTLA‐4) therapy</topic><topic>anti‐programmed cell death protein 1 (anti–PD‐1) therapy</topic><topic>Brain</topic><topic>Brain cancer</topic><topic>brain metastases</topic><topic>Brain Neoplasms - secondary</topic><topic>Brain Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung - therapy</topic><topic>Chemoradiotherapy</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Disease Progression</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hazard assessment</topic><topic>Health hazards</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immune checkpoint</topic><topic>Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors</topic><topic>Immunotherapy</topic><topic>Lung cancer</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Melanoma</topic><topic>Melanoma - secondary</topic><topic>Melanoma - therapy</topic><topic>Metastases</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local</topic><topic>Non-small cell lung carcinoma</topic><topic>non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Proportional Hazards Models</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>radiotherapy</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical models</topic><topic>Survival Analysis</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Qian, Jack M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, Allison M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, Kate</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hammoudeh, Lubna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Catalano, Paul J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hodi, F. Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cagney, Daniel N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haas‐Kogan, Daphne A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schoenfeld, Jonathan D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aizer, Ayal A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><jtitle>Cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Qian, Jack M.</au><au>Martin, Allison M.</au><au>Martin, Kate</au><au>Hammoudeh, Lubna</au><au>Catalano, Paul J.</au><au>Hodi, F. Stephen</au><au>Cagney, Daniel N.</au><au>Haas‐Kogan, Daphne A.</au><au>Schoenfeld, Jonathan D.</au><au>Aizer, Ayal A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Response rate and local recurrence after concurrent immune checkpoint therapy and radiotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma brain metastases</atitle><jtitle>Cancer</jtitle><addtitle>Cancer</addtitle><date>2020-12-15</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>126</volume><issue>24</issue><spage>5274</spage><epage>5282</epage><pages>5274-5282</pages><issn>0008-543X</issn><eissn>1097-0142</eissn><abstract>Background
Prior literature has suggested synergy between immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) and radiotherapy (RT) for the treatment of brain metastases (BrM), but to the authors' knowledge the optimal timing of therapy to maximize this synergy is unclear.
Methods
A total of 199 patients with melanoma and non–small cell lung cancer with BrM received ICT and RT between 2007 and 2016 at the study institution. To reduce selection biases, individual metastases were included only if they were treated with RT within 90 days of ICT. Concurrent treatment was defined as RT delivered on the same day as or in between doses of an ICT course; all other treatment was considered to be nonconcurrent. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to response and local disease recurrence on a per‐metastasis basis, using a sandwich estimator to account for intrapatient correlation.
Results
The final cohort included 110 patients with 340 BrM, with 102 BrM treated concurrently and 238 BrM treated nonconcurrently. Response rates were higher with the use of concurrent treatment (70% vs 47%; P < .001), with correspondingly lower rates of progressive disease (5% vs 26%; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, concurrent treatment was found to be associated with improved time to response (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.18‐2.63 [P = .006]) and decreased local recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23‐0.78 [P = .006]). This effect appeared to be greater for melanoma than for non–small cell lung cancer, although interaction tests were not statistically significant. Only 1 of 103 metastases which had a complete response later developed disease progression.
Conclusions
Concurrent RT and ICT may improve response rates and decrease local recurrence of brain metastases compared with treatment that was nonconcurrent but delivered within 90 days. Further study of this combination in prospective, randomized trials is warranted.
There is significant interest in potential synergy between radiotherapy and immune checkpoint therapy, but the optimal timing of each therapy remains unclear. The current study examines a cohort of patients with melanoma and non–small cell lung cancer with brain metastases who were managed with immune checkpoint therapy and brain‐directed radiotherapy within a 90‐day period. Compared with nonconcurrent therapy, concurrent therapy is associated with an improved brain metastasis response rate and decreased local recurrence.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>32926760</pmid><doi>10.1002/cncr.33196</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2378-4800</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9522-6445</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0008-543X |
| ispartof | Cancer, 2020-12, Vol.126 (24), p.5274-5282 |
| issn | 0008-543X 1097-0142 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2463574077 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Wiley Free Content; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Aged anti‐cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (anti–CTLA‐4) therapy anti‐programmed cell death protein 1 (anti–PD‐1) therapy Brain Brain cancer brain metastases Brain Neoplasms - secondary Brain Neoplasms - therapy Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung - therapy Chemoradiotherapy Clinical trials Disease Progression Female Hazard assessment Health hazards Humans Immune checkpoint Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Immunotherapy Lung cancer Lung Neoplasms - therapy Male Melanoma Melanoma - secondary Melanoma - therapy Metastases Metastasis Middle Aged Neoplasm Recurrence, Local Non-small cell lung carcinoma non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) Oncology Proportional Hazards Models Prospective Studies Radiation therapy radiotherapy Statistical analysis Statistical models Survival Analysis Treatment Outcome |
| title | Response rate and local recurrence after concurrent immune checkpoint therapy and radiotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma brain metastases |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T17%3A26%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Response%20rate%20and%20local%20recurrence%20after%20concurrent%20immune%20checkpoint%20therapy%20and%20radiotherapy%20for%20non%E2%80%93small%20cell%20lung%20cancer%20and%20melanoma%20brain%20metastases&rft.jtitle=Cancer&rft.au=Qian,%20Jack%20M.&rft.date=2020-12-15&rft.volume=126&rft.issue=24&rft.spage=5274&rft.epage=5282&rft.pages=5274-5282&rft.issn=0008-543X&rft.eissn=1097-0142&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/cncr.33196&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2463574077%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2463574077&rft_id=info:pmid/32926760&rfr_iscdi=true |